they have to be away from their homes, sometimes as long as 8, 10, or 11 hours in the day, that the type of facility to which they go, the type of day-care center to which they go, can provide those educational opportunities; and by that I mean the nursery educational opportunities, that we would like to provide for those children that we know should be provided for those children to partially take the place of what those children might be getting at home.

I just want to reiterate that we are not attempting to encourage or make this possible beyond the needs of the national defense program. Mr. SCHWABE. Do you think you are in a position to state what the needs of the national defense program are in this respect?

Dr. ELIOT. We cannot state that in detail, Mr. Congressman.
Mr. SCHWABE. I do not think you can.

Dr. ELIOT. We cannot do it any more at this point than in the early days of World War II. The people who were serving in this role and under the Lanham Act were able to foresee it at the beginning.

In that period the peak load of the care of children was very high. At the present moment we are only attempting to provide for a relatively small number of children. But the needs of that small number of children are just as great as the needs of the larger number of children during the period of the World War II.

It is a pity that mothers today in some of these defense areas are at work, for reasons best known to themselves and to those people who are employing them. It is important that the opportunity for those children be the best that we can provide.

Mr. SCHWABE. I have conducted some investigations along this. line, and I have found that a lot of it is mercenary on the part of these men and their wives, and that you only encourage it and offer a premium for them, the women, to go into these establishments when you say that you do not want to see any of them neglected and you want them to have an opportunity, if they want to, for reasons best known to themselves, and all of that. That is putting a premium upon it. That is encouraging the women to go out into these defense establishments and work.

If they were not in most instances mercenary, and thought more of their homes and their families than they did of the money, they would stay and work at home.

Dr. ELIOT. I want to say one more word in respect to this, because what do these women do today if we do not provide adequate places for them?

Mr. SCHWABE. We are not the guardians for everybody in this world, and their morals, are we?

Dr. ELIOT. These fathers and mothers are forced to go to what Miss Arnold has already spoken about, to the centers that are set up by those who are really mercenary, to those who are running these centers for profit, and where there are not properly conducted practices under the authority of licensed agencies.

Mr. SCHWABE. I have seen some of them privately conducted just as creditably as yours.

Dr. ELIOT. Some of them are and, on the other hand, some of them are conducted under poor circumstances.

The parents who take their children to those centers have to pay large sums of money, and often very poor care is given.

SCOPE AND FINANCING OF PROPOSED DAY-CARE PROGRAM

Mr. SCHWABE. And you want $1,800,000 for the rest of this fiscal year for this program.

Dr. ELIOT. Of the $1,800,000, $1,500,000 would provide day-care centers for approximately 4,500 children, including the amount of money that would be contributed by the local community for that purpose.

Mr. SCHWABE. Which is very meager ordinarily.

Dr. ELIOT. NO. We believe the local community will match, essentially, the amount of money. The local money comes from the payments made by the parents of the children as well as the community itself. So it is really a 50-50 proposition. The Federal Government will put in about half the cost; the parents and the local community will put in about half the cost.

Mr. MILES. I believe you intended to say "day-care services" rather than "day-care centers" when you were referring to the $1,500,000. Dr. ELIOT. That is right. We have put in a very small estimate as far as construction is concerned.

Mr. SCHWABE. I think that is all, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HEDRICK. Judge McGrath.

DAY-CARE APPLICANTS BEING TURNED AWAY

Mr. McGRATH. This morning, Miss Arnold, you very graphically told us about a case where there were 10 children per week that were unable to obtain this child-care service. I understand in talking to you during the lunch hour that your statement should have been 10 cases per month.

Miss ARNOLD. I checked on that statement. We have figures from two places in Georgia. The one I spoke of was Columbus, Ga.

The information we have there is that 141 children are now being served by four of what we call commercial centers. Two of these nurseries are rejecting applications at the rate of 20 per month. We do not know how many are being rejected by the other two.

There are no public or volunteer centers. The health and welfare departments consider the facilities are inadequate because of overcrowding and undertrained personnel, as well as too many children per staff member.

The community fears the additional danger because of these small groups growing up on an informal basis.

I have some in Rochester, if you are interested in that.

Mr. McGRATH. I do not like the reference to my own State, particularly. I know it is common with the Federal Security Agency when they come in on an appropriation to pick out something pertaining to the State of every member on this side of the table and refer to it. I think in fairness to this committee we try to look at the over-all picture. So forget about Rochester.

Tell us more about the case you were just telling us about. What city was that?

Miss ARNOLD. Columbus, Ga. You recall this morning I just gave instances, but I did not give the States or cities.

Mr. McGRATH. You have reports?

Miss ARNOLD. Yes.

Mr. McGRATH. This morning you referred to it as "surveys." In answer to the question from the gentleman from Oklahoma you said it was just information you gathered from other groups. You have made no independent examination as to the facts you have given this committee?

Miss ARNOLD. Our workers got this information directly from the director of the State department of public welfare. We worked continuously with those State departments.

Mr. McGRATH. We would like to see the report as far as Georgia is concerned, so the Appropriations Committee could send their investigators there and have a complete report in order to see how it sizes up with the report as found by this agency head.

Mr. HEDRICK. Did you render the report for the committee?
Miss ARNOLD. We can give you that.

LOCATION OF DAY-CARE CENTERS

Mr. McGRATH. Mr. Miles, this is the first time that we have had the pleasure of your testimony before us. This morning you made reference to the effect that you thought it would be economically wise in the saving of money if we could put child-care centers in places where there was no other activity at the present time. Did you mean by that that you could go into places, we will say, like some of the biggest cities, and erect these care centers even though there was no housing under this particular act?

Mr. MILES. I am a little puzzled by your statement, Mr. McGrath, as to what I said. As I recall it, I was emphasizing the possible saving that might occur only in areas which were particularly critical and where much new housing had to be built if the fullest use were made of the people in that labor-market area, including the women who want to work in that area. The women may be permitted to go to work if you provide day-care services, which would then eliminate the necessity of Federal expenditures out of this very same appropriation to build new houses in order to bring in additional workers from outside the area.

Mr. McGRATH. Then you did not mean that where no new housing was contemplated

Mr. MILES. By no means.

EMPLOYMENT OF MR. MILES

Mr. McGRATH. I understand your experience heretofore has been with the Bureau of the Budget?

Mr. MILES. I spent quite a number of years with the Bureau of the Budget.

Mr. McGRATH. You left there about November 5, 1950?

Mr. MILES. November 6.

Mr. McGRATH. While you were in the Bureau of the Budget my recollection is that you were branch chief of the Social Security Agency and of the Labor Department?

Mr. MILES. Yes; Chief of the Labor and Welfare Branch.

Mr. McGRATH. And you left that Agency to come with the Federal Security Agency?

Mr. MILES. Yes, sir.

Mr. McGRATH. And you left it November 6 to come to the Federal Security Agency?

Mr. MILES. Yes, sir.

Mr. McGRATH. Would you mind telling us what your rating was and what grade you had in the Bureau of the Budget?

Mr. MILES. It was GS-15.

Mr. McGRATH. And you came to Mr. Ewing's agency with the same rating?

Mr. MILES. For 5 months I was still at a 15, pending the approval of a new classification by the Civil Service Commission. But after classification by the Civil Service Commission it was set at GS-17. Mr. McGRATH. Of course, you did not have anything to do with preparing the budget estimate on this matter, because it went to the Bureau of the Budget sometime about September 10, 1951.

Mr. MILES. I had nothing to do with that, but I had something to do with it in the Federal Security Agency.

Mr. McGRATH. Then you appeared before the Bureau of the Budget?

Mr. MILES. Yes; on the opposite side of the table.

Mr. McGRATH. And a few days after, the 14th or 24th, the Bureau of the Budget came up with this recommendation of $25,500,000? Mr. MILES. Yes, sir.

STATUS OF HOUSING CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM

Mr. McGRATH. And $15,000,000 for housing; is that correct?
Mr. MILES. That is correct.

Mr. McGRATH. Can you tell us if any of this housing has been started as yet?

Mr. MILES. None of the housing which is authorized under this law has been started; no, sir.

Mr. McGRATH. Could you tell how far they have gone into plans or any preliminary steps they have taken?

Mr. MILES. In general, I would say there has been very little done. Our experience with the so-called relaxation of regulation X, which was a regulation under the old housing law which restricted credit in order to cut down on the construction, was that very few new houses were built in these critical areas as a result of easing up on the credit restrictions.

I do not happen to have in my head, possibly Mr. Snyder might, the figure as to the number of new starts, new houses begun in these areas which were designated as critical under the old law.

Mr. Snyder, do you have anything on that?

Mr. SNYDER. I have not seen any figure on the actual number of starts.

Mr. MILES. We received information informally from the Housing and Home Finance Agency which indicated that the number of new starts in those areas as a result of the relaxation of regulation X was very disappointing. In consequence, this new law, it is hoped, may help to ease the situation.

Mr. McGRATH. So then for all practical purposes the building program has not gotten even in its formative stages as yet? Mr. MILES. That is right, sir.

LANHAM ACT EXPENDITURES

Mr. McGRATH. You refer on the second page of your statement to $22,499,000 under the general breakdown of the work "Other." Could you explain that item to us?

Mr. MILES. I do not believe I am familiar with that.

Mr. McGRATH. It is your own statement.

Mr. MILES. I was speaking of the Lanham Act experience.

Mr. McGRATH. It is page 2.

Mr. MILES. Mr. Snyder, did you have the detail on the $22 million figure under "Other" which was the experience in the Lanham Act in World War II?

Mr. SNYDER. This comes from the Federal Works Agency reports. There is no breakdown, as far as I know.

Mr. McGRATH. I would like to correct the last statement. It comes directly to this committee from the statement of Rufus E. Miles, which was read to the committee this morning.. Did you prepare this statement yourself?

Mr. MILES. Yes, sir. May I just comment, Judge McGrath. I would be very glad to try to obtain from the Federal Works Agency the breakdown of that figure.

Mr. McGRATH. Mr. Miles, do you not see that this committee is trying to evaluate the basis of your statement and of anything that you can tell this committee so that we can rely on it. We would like to know what it means.

DEFINITION OF BASIC FACILITIES

Will you turn to the last page of your statement? If I may recall it, you talked about the "most basic essentials of community living.' Of course, I do not know just what you mean by "basic essentials." Mr. MILES. That term is intended to apply, for example, to the provision of the necessary utilities, the water-purification plants which are needed to supply water to the houses that are built in these areas, the sewage-treatment works which are necessary to treat the sewage and dispose

Mr. McGRATH. They are the essentials. The words "most basic" struck me as being a contradiction in terms, and I wondered what you meant by "most basic," since "essential" means cannot be done without.

Mr. MILES. That is what I meant.

RECREATIONAL FACILITIES PROGRAM

Mr. McGRATH. Will you tell us what you plan in your recreational program?

Mr. MILES. We have from the Department of Defense a request, or a letter indicating, 12 areas in which they feel there is a very acute need for recreational buildings in the communities adjacent to military

camps.

Mr. McGRATH. Just what do you plan for your recreational facilities? That is what we would like to know, what your program is, what you want to use the money for.