determination as to whether or not the state should receive the amounts that have been requested.

Now, of course I am somewhat reluctant to give great latitude to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, as far as making determinations as to the needs of the State as far as caseworkers are concerned. I do feel very strongly that the respective States have great responsibility in this field and that the people that they have at the heads of their respective departments are competent people. If they were not competent people, of course naturally I think they would be removed. Is that your oinion?

Mr. LOURIE. I believe so, but I still believe that any level of government which has money appropriated to it has the responsibility for the accountability to the appropriating body. The States do not have direct accountability. The State departments of public welfare do not have direct accountability to the Federal Congress for the money that comes from the Federal Government.

I would assume that the Congress would look for the accountability to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, so that in that sense I think that that Department has to set some guidelines for the States.

Mr. Knox. Of course we get back to this question which I happen to be greatly disturbed about, and that was a statement by the Secretary that he would expect the States to conform and if they did not conform the Department would get tough and cut off their funds. If we are going to give an arbitrary delegation of power to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, regardless of who he may be, and he can make determinations as to the number of caseworkers that they must have for those who are on welfare, then of course I think we are delegating away power to the Secretary which rightfully belongs to the State. I think the States themselves should play a very important role in determining the amount of the overhead costs of the operation of their respective States and not be dictated by the Federal Government.

Mr. LOURIE. I would agree with this. The business of the States' program begins with the State, itself. I think it is the State that has to determine what the basic nature of its program should be. I think that the Federal agency is a helpful partner to the State. I do not think that it is a dictator of the State's policy.

However, I do not think that what is proposed in this bill is primarily different from what has been in the Social Security Act since the beginning with respect to the fact that each State will produce a plan under the titles and the plan has to be approved by the Secretary.

As to the question of whether or not a Secretary would produce guidelines or sanctions that were arbitrary and unreasonable, I assure you, sir, that should this ever happen to any extent you would hear very promptly, as would that Secretary, from the States.

I have not known the States or the departments of public welfare ever to be very shy about raising that kind of question.

Mr. Knox. Of course we are fully aware of the fact that the State department of welfare is not a discretionary agency of the State, but is mandated by State law.

Mr. LOURIE. Yes, sir. I imagine that in one of the later bits of testimony from the American Public Welfare Association that you

would have the opportunity to get more information about the points of view of the State departments, all of which, like our own, the one I work in, are members of the American Public Welfare Association. Mr. KNOX. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions? If not, we thank you, gentlemen.

Mr. LOURIE. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Cruikshank. Mr. Cruikshank, even though you have been before the committee many times in the past, we would like you to again identify yourself for this record.

STATEMENT OF NELSON H. CRUIKSHANK, DIRECTOR, SOCIAL SECURITY DEPARTMENT; ACCOMPANIED BY LEONARD LESSER. DIRECTOR, SOCIAL SECURITY ACTIVITIES, INDUSTRIAL UNION DEPARTMENT; AND CLINTON FAIR, DEPARTMENT OF LEGISLATION, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS

Mr. CRUIKSHANK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Nelson H. Cruikshank. I am director of the Social Security Department of the AFL-CIO, and my office is at 815 16th Street NW., in Washington. Appearing with me is Mr. Leonard Lesser, director of social security activities for the Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO. We are presenting this as a joint statement. We are accompanied by Mr. Clinton Fair of the AFL-CIO Department of Legislation.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we appreciate the opportunity to appear before this committee in support of H.R. 10032. which embodies the President's recommendations and was introduced by the chairman, to extend and improve the public assistance and child welfare service programs of the Social Security Act.

The AFL-CIO has always supported the public welfare programs established when the Social Security Act was enacted more than 25 years ago. While we have both consistently taken the position that our social insurance programs must be the framework within which our public welfare programs are to be built, we have always recognized the importance of public assistance and child welfare programs. As this committee knows, we have always supported amendments to provide more liberal payments to those in need through increased Federal grants to the States.

At the same time, we have never believed that the reasons which have resulted in the need for persons to seek assistance can be removed by the simple payment of assistance grants. We therefore believe that the basic purpose of H.R. 10032, described by the President in this state of the Union message as―

stressing service instead of support, rehabilitation instead of relief, and training for resourceful work instead of prolonged dependence

deserve the strong support of this committee and all Members of the Congress.

The purposes are accomplished in various ways. The provisions of the bill would provide increased Federal grants to encourage States to strengthen and broaden the rehabilitative and preventive

services and the training of additional competent welfare personnel to provide these services.

We find it hard to believe that anyone would quarrel with provisions designed to achieve these purposes. As the President stated in his message to the Congress

communities which have tried the rehabilitative road * * *have demonstrated what can be done with creative, thoughtfully conceived, properly managed, programs of preventive and social rehabilitation. In those communities, families have been restored to self-reliance, and relief rolls have been reduced.

We are particularly pleased that States will be encouraged to provide services not only to those who are already on the relief rolls but also to those who in the absence of help would likely become applicants for relief. Moneys spent to prevent dependency are of greater benefit to society as well as the individual than moneys spent on assistance grants.

The provisions of H.R. 10032 making permanent the provisions for aid to dependent children of unemployed parents and expanding the child welfare services are also designed to achieve these ends.

With further reference to the need for broadened programs in the area of child health needs, may I direct the committee's attention to the Mills bill, H.R. 9299. While this measure is not specifically a subject of these hearings, its purposes are consistent with those of H.R. 10032, and we would strongly urge the incorporation of its proposals into the bill which you report.

It is our feeling that H.R. 9299, particularly if amended to give substantially greater support to the neglected areas of need in our great urban centers, would substantially increase the ability of the Children's Bureau to carry out its responsibilities in child health research as complementary to and coordinated with the program of the National Institutes of Health.

The AFL-CIO has long supported the elimination of residence requirements in public assistance programs. We are all aware of the shifting population trends in our Nation. We believe that people who find themselves caught in these movements should not be denied help. We believe, therefore, that the provisions of the bill which would reduce the maximum residence limitations to 1 year and would encourage the elimination of any residence requirements are a step in the right direction.

We would, however, prefer to see all residence requirements completely eliminated. As the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare pointed out in his testimony before this committee, the Federal Government's share in those programs represents nearly 80 percent of the cost in some States and for the Nation as a whole averages nearly 60 percent. These moneys are collected from citizens in every State. They should not be denied to a citizen in need because he has too recently become a resident of a particular State. We do not believe that the elimination of residence requirements will encourage people to wander from State to State in search of higher relief checks.

Nor do we believe that American people prefer a relief check to an opportunity to work. At the same time, we recognize that there are many who are not equipped to seek work in the labor market. We, therefore, support the purposes of the community work and training provisions of H.R. 10032. We strongly believe, however, that the

80118-62--29

protections now incorporated in the bill to assure that the prevailing wage will be paid, that health and safety standards will be observed, that children will not be adversely affected if mothers are assigned to work, and that persons will not be denied aid for refusal of such work if good cause exists for the refusal, are essential if a program such as this is to be enacted by the Congress.

We also believe that every care must be taken to assure that such work projects should not be used as a substitute for work which has normally been provided by the community to all unemployed persons regardless of their status as relief recipients.

The provisions of section 409 (a) (1) (C) on page 28 of the bill requiring that such projects "do not result either in displacement of regular workers or in the performance of work that would otherwise be performed by employees of public and private agencies, institutions, or organizations" are intended to assure this result.

We believe, however, that a specific requirement that such project is not of a kind which has normally been undertaken by the community in the past might make more certain that a State could not use these work projects and Federal funds to finance normal community functions.

Our support of H.R. 10032 does not rest on the belief that it will solve all the problems of need, dependency, or destitution. We know of no person or organization that so believes. In fact, some of the most tragic occurrences of the past several months have arisen from the misguided efforts of those who believe or claim they have simple, shortcut solutions to these complex social problems.

This measure does, however, present a fresh, and, we believe, thoughtfully constructive approach to these problems, and for this reason we hope your committee will report it favorably and that the Congress will enact it without undue delay.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Cruikshank, we thank you, sir, and Mr. Lesser and Mr. Fair for coming to the committee. You are always very helpful in your discussions of matters before the committee and that is true today.

Are there any questions of Mr. Cruikshank?

Mr. KNOX. One question.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Knox.

Mr. KNOX. Mr. Cruikshank, I note that you support the provisions of H.R. 10032 relative to making permanent provisions for aid to dependent children of unemployed parents. Has your department done any work in this field to determine the number of States that have not passed the enabling legislation in order to make these payments to unemployed persons?

Mr. CRUIKSHANK. We are aware, sir, that there are some States that have not taken up this program. There are a number of States that have not taken advantage of the provisions enacted last year, yes, sir.

Mr. KNOX. I understand there are, but I was wondering if your department had made any research work in this field to determine the number of States that had not passed the enabling legislation to make the payments to unemployed.

Mr. CRUIKSHAK. We have made note of the States that have not. I do not have the figure with me now. We would be glad to supply it.

Mr. KNOX. Would you supply it for the record?
Mr. CRUIKSHANK. Yes, sir.

(The material referred to above follows:)

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND CONGRESSS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS, Washington, D.C., February 14, 1962.

Hon. VICTOR A. KNOX,
House Office Building,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN KNOX: Yesterday when we appeared before the Ways and Means Committee, you asked if we in the AFL-CIO had made any study of the States which had taken action to implement the new provision for aid to dependent children of unemployed parents. We replied that we had tried to keep abreast of these developments and promised to send you information concerning the number of States which had taken action.

We find that there are approved plans in the following 15 States: Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Washington, and West Virginia.

One State-Wisconsin-has legislation in process to give basis for the program.

In the following 12 States, bills were considered in the 1961 sessions of the legislatures, but were not enacted: Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, and Vermont.

In the following 26 States there was no action taken in 1961 and there is no intention for action in 1962: Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, District of Columbia, Georgia, Guam, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virgin Islands, Virginia, and Wyoming.

For your further information we find that on June 23, 1961, the director of the Department of Social Security, AFL-CIO, sent a general letter to all presidents and secretaries of the State AFL-CIO bodies containing suggestions as to how they could assist their States to take full advantage of the new legislation authorizing Federal grants to aid dependent children of unemployed parents. This was followed up on July 12 and July 18, by memorandum addressed to union education directors, research directors, and legislative representatives suggesting similar action.

If there is any other information that you think we might have which would be useful to you in consideration of the legislative proposal now before you please feel free to call on us.

Yours sincerely,

NELSON H. CRUIKSHANK,
Director, Department of Social Security.
LEONARD LESSER,

Director, Social Security Activities,
Industrial Union Department.

Thank you again.

Mr. KNOX. That is all, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions? Mr. CRUIKSHANK. Thank you, gentlemen. The CHAIRMAN. Is Dr. Winston present? Dr. Winston, I apologize. I did not see you in the center of the room. You have been before the committee on numerous occasions in the past. We welcome you back today and ask you to again identify yourself for the record.

STATEMENT OF DR. ELLEN WINSTON, PAST PRESIDENT, THE AMERICAN PUBLIC WELFARE ASSOCIATION

Dr. WINSTON. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Dr. Ellen Winston. I am the commissioner of the North Carolina State Board of Public Welfare. As a past president of the American Public Welfare Association, and currently