Mr. LUDLOW. Has that possible eventuality been taken into consideration in preparing this estimate? Miss HOEY. Oh, yes; indeed, it has. Mr. ALTMEYER. All we have is the net result of the various forces as demonstrated by the actual number of persons on the rolls. Mr. LUDLOW. But would it not be reasonable to assume that there might be such an eventuality develop, and would it not be reasonable to make some provision for that in this estimate? Mr. ALTMEYER. All I can say is that we have to match, as you know, the State expenditures for this purpose. Mr. LUDLOW. Yes; I know that. Mr. ALTMEYER. And if they do not come up to this estimate the funds will revert back to the Treasury. But we think this is a very conservative estimate. AMOUNT ESTIMATED FOR FISCAL YEAR 1942 Mr. O'NEAL. Mr. Altmeyer, how does it happen that the estimates are $26,000,000 off from those that you made for this year? Miss HOEY. We asked for $294,486,000 and were given $270,000,000. Mr. ALTMEYER. Yes; they were not very much off. Mr. O'NEAL. As I understand it, without any increase of any kind you stated it would be $26,000,000, and anticipating a possible increase that it would be an additional $4,000,000. Mr. ALTMEYER. Yes; that is correct. Mr. O'NEAL. How does it happen that the estimates that were made for the fiscal year 1942 were off by $26,000,000? Mr. ALTMEYER. Our estimates were not off. The amount granted was less than we had estimated would be needed. We estimated that we would need $294,486,000. Mr. O'NEAL. And you got $270,000,000? Mr. ALTMEYER. Yes, sir. Mr. O'NEAL. In other words, $24,000,000 less than you requested? Mr. ALTMEYER. Yes, sir. Mr. O'NEAL. That is, for the 1942 Budget? Mr. ALTMEYER. Yes, sir. Miss HOEY. Then we anticipated a little leeway by transfer of funds from aid to dependent children and aid to the blind. There may be some savings this year that could be transferred from these two programs to old-age assistance. DATE OF PREPARATION OF ESTIMATE OF DEFICIENCY Mr. O'NEAL. When were these estimates prepared for this additional amount? Mr. GORDON. It is based on our best information through December 1941. Mr. O'NEAL. When did you submit the question to the Budget? Mr. GORDON. February 5 we submitted our estimates to Mr. Powell. Mr. O'NEAL. February 5? Mr. GORDON. Yes, sir. They were submitted to the Budget Bureau February 24. BASIS OF ESTIMATE FOR ADDITIONAL $4,000,000 REQUESTED Mr. O'NEAL. In what portion of the country do you anticipate that there will be an increase to absorb this $4,000,000 or any other part of the amount which you are requesting? Miss HOEY. It is a general increase in most of the States. Mr. O'NEAL. Is it fairly equally distributed throughout the States? Miss HOEY. Yes. Mr. O'NEAL. Are there any examples where you anticipate quite an increase? Mr. GORDON. We estimated first the number of recipients and then the average payment received. We did that by months, and I can give you that for the record. Mr. O'NEAL. You have information, I presume, upon which you base that estimate of $4,000,000, as to where the actual increase in the number of recipients would be. Where would those increases be principally? Mr. GORDON. Arizona, Alabama, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Washington, and West Virginia. Mr. O'NEAL. Now, most of those are very small States from the standpoint of population, and I presume that the amounts of increase would be quite small. Mr. GORDON. Yes, sir. Mr. O'NEAL. What percentage of the total would Michigan have, for example? Mr. GORDON. Michigan had about 93,000 recipients out of a total of about two and one-quarter million recipients. Mr. O'NEAL. You mean that the proportion of increase would probably be about the same as that number bears to the total number? Mr. GORDON. I am not sure I understand the question? Mr. O'NEAL. The point I am making is approximately how much of this amount expected to be allowed for those States will go to Michigan, and to Indiana, Mr. Ludlow's State? Mr. ALTMEYER. A little over 3 percent will go to Indiana. Mr. LUDLOW. For Indiana, and what for Michigan? Mr. ALTMEYER. I gave the figure of 3 percent for Indiana. For Michigan it would be 41/2 percent. Mr. O'NEAL. Of the total sum 412 percent would go to Michigan? Mr. ALTMEYER. Yes; but there are slight increases in practically every State, and there are some States that show a slight decline. Mr. O'NEAL. This has no relationship to this controversial matter that we had up here with reference to the $100,000,000 and the $300,000,000; this is not affected by that in any way? Mr. ALTMEYER. No. DEFICIENCY AMOUNT REQUESTED OF BUDGET BUREAU Mr. LUDLOW. The estimate that comes before us here is for $30,000,000. What additional amount did you request of the Budget? Mr. GORDON. We requested $294,486,000 originally. Mr. ALTMEYER. $30,000,000 is what we asked of the Budget Bureau. Mr. LUDLOW. They gave you the full amount? Mr. ALTMEYER. Yes; the Budget Bureau gave us everything we asked for in the deficiency. Mr. LUDLOW. They gave you all that you asked for? Mr. ALTMEYER. Yes, sir. AMOUNTS OF FEDERAL GRANTS-IN-AID FOR OLD-AGE PENSIONS, 1938-41 Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. What was the total paid by the Government. in 1941? Mr. ALTMEYER. The Federal Government paid $259,874,888. Mr. ALTMEYER. Yes. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. What was the amount in 1940? Mr. ALTMEYER. I think it was $231,000,000. I can furnish that. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Please furnish that for the record. Mr. ALTMEYER. Yes, sir. (The statement referred to is as follows:) Federal grants-in-aid for old-age assistance, fiscal years 1938-39, 1939-40, and Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. I was not clear as to what the balance of $49,000,000 is available for. Miss HOEY. That is now available for the fourth quarter of this yearfor old-age assistance. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. That is estimated as of April 1? Miss HOEY. Yes, sir. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. So that you have been running about $24,000,000 a month for the first 9 months of the fiscal year; you spent $220,-000,000 the first three quarters of the year? Miss HOEY. Yes, sir. Mr. GORDON. And that also includes the cost of administration. STATE DIRECTORS OF PUBLIC WELFARE Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. I want to ask Mr. Altmeyer, is the position of State director supposed to be a full-time job? Mr. ALTMEYER. A State director of public welfare? Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. No; of the Social Security Board. Mr. ALTMEYER. Do you mean a State official or a Social Security Board official? Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. The Social Security Board official. Mr. ALTMEYER. We do not have any State directors. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. What State officials do they have? Mr. ALTMEYER. In most of the States they have what they call a public welfare department, and they have a full-time executive of that department. 70270-42-pt. 1-2 Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Is there anything in the law, or in policy, which prohibits a person from holding that position or the position of regional director and holding other positions at the same time? Mr. ALTMEYER. No; I do not believe so. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. You do not expect them to put in full time on the job? Mr. ALTMEYER. It is a full-time job. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Then, as a matter of policy, there is objection to them holding other positions? Mr. ALTMEYER. I think it would be very difficult for a State director of public welfare to hold more than one job. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. As a matter of policy, you oppose it? Mr. ALTMEYER. Yes. Miss HOEY. The directors of public welfare administer, of course, four or five programs, including aid to the blind and aid to dependent children as well as old-age assistance. MONDAY, MARCH 16, 1942. GRANTS TO STATES FOR UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATION The CHAIRMAN. We will now take up the estimate in House Document No. 670 of $12,500,000 for unemployment compensation. The item is as follows: Grants to States for unemployment compensation administration: For an additional amount, fiscal year 1942, for unemployment compensation administration, including grants to States, $12,500,000, which, together with the appropriation under this heading in the Labor-Federal Security Appropriation Act, 1942, shall be available, in addition to the objects specified under said heading, for the administration by the Social Security Board of public employment offices in the various States, including printing and binding; transfer of household goods and effects, as provided in the Act of October 10, 1940; travel expenses, including reimbursement of employees at not to exceed 3 cents per mile for travel performed by them in privately owned automobiles within the limits of their official stations; and payment of salaries to employees while taking annual and sick leave based upon unused leave, accrued under State regulations, found by the Social Security Board to conform with the requirements of title III of the Social Security Act, as amended, and on the basis of State employment which had been financed in whole or in part from grants under title III of said Act, which par ments shall not exceed amounts payable for such purposes under Federal laws and regulations with respect to the maximum accumulation of such leave: Provided, That the Federal Security Administrator may delegate to such officers or employees as he may designate for the purpose all authority in connection with the transfer of personnel and household goods and effects from one official station to another, $12,500,000. There is considerable new language there. Will you give us the justification for that? Mr. ALTMEYER. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. You have $62,500,000 for this current year's appropriation? Mr. ALTMEYER. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. And you are requesting $79,700,000 for 1943. The CHAIRMAN. What is the status of your fund at this time? Mr. CORSON. There is a balance available as of April 1, of $8,840,000. The CHAIRMAN. What do you require per month? Mr. CORSON. The requirements per quarter are approximately $20,000,000. The CHAIRMAN. All right, give us a statement on this, Mr. Altmeyer. SUMMARY OF ESTIMATE Mr. ALTMEYER. This $12,500,000 is to supplement the present appropriation of $62,500,000 for the administration of unemployment compensation in the States and the administration of the United States Employment Service. This table which I would like to submit for your information indicates the several purposes for which this total sum is required. Statement of supplemental appropriation required for grants to States for Unemployment Compensation Administration, fiscal year 1942 Purpose for which required Appropria- Appropriation recommended by Bureau of the Budget 1. Additional amount required for grants to States and Federal operation of em- (a) Amount in excess of 1942 budget estimates needed to meet $5,886, 655 (b) Amount required to replace Wagner-Peyser, State and local funds during second half of fiscal year, which are not available for Federal operation of employment offices__ 3,096, 239 2. National occupational inventory of Selective Service registrants to insure maximum utilization of workers' skills in essential industries, and to assist in allocating the supply of workers between essential industries and the armed forces. 3. Extension of farm placement services to provide for the mobilization of farm labor supply through the establishment of approximately 400 additional employment offices in critical agricultural counties..... 4. Expansion of departmental and regional staff to provide for handling the additional activities directly related to the war-production effort, including those activities arising from responsibilities assigned to the U. S. Employment Service by the War Production Board.. 5. Salary adjustments resulting from State action raising salaries of State employees due to increased living costs... Total. The need for the $12,500,000 comes about this way. The budgets submitted by the State employment-security agencies to provide for the costs of administering the State unemployment-compensation laws and the former State employment services after being scrutinized and revised by our regional representatives, before approval by the Board, totaled $5,832,498 more than the present $62,500,000 appropriation, plus other funds available prior to January 1, under the Wagner-Peyser Act. The accompanying exhibit 1 indicates that while the estimated expenditures for the fiscal year 1942 show an increase of only 8 percent over the fiscal year 1941, the work load has increased in greater proportion, the number of employment-service placements showing an increase of 25.4 percent, with new applications increased by 23.6 percent. While the number of new unemployment-compensation claims shows a decrease of 7 percent as compared with the preceding fiscal year, the number of benefit checks issued is increased 4.4 percent and the number of wage items received shows an increase of 16.6 per |