bility they will. Under the legislation there is no requirement that they must supplement the working poor.

The CHAIRMAN. That question was merely introductory to this one. The States that do adopt this program, isn't that going to cause a further migration from the so-called poorer States to the richer States?

Or am I off the track?

Mr. ASHBROOK. I would say they are not migrating now. Most statistics indicate that there is a very small percentage that is actually transferring at the present time-the big transfers came 20 to 25 years ago when there was a move to defense plants in Detroit, Chicago, et cetera. There is not a major migration now. One of the accomplishments of the bill is that-maybe some people call it feeble, but at least it tends to narrow the gap between the States that pay very little welfare and the States that pay high welfare. So, I would say the answer would have to be no, there would be less encouragement under this bill to leave than there is now, simply because you tend to narrow the disparity between the several States by putting a national floor. This is what Mr. Finch had in mind when he advocated a national floor. It is obviously so low it does not really discourage somebody from going to New Jersey that wants to anyway, but it does narrow the disparity between the States. So, actually, it would seem to operate as a disincentive for somebody to move.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well. I am sorry I misunderstood you.

I want to join with those who have extended their appreciation to you for the work you have done on this bill. It is not 4:30. The leadership of this body, referring to the House, are all pressing to get some action on this bill today. I have no desire whatever to stop that, rather I am in accord with it. We have three or four more witnesses here and it is going to be up to those witnesses and the committee whether we keep a quorum here and hear those witnesses and take some action on this bill.

Thank you very much.

Mr. ASHBROOK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. I think we have heard from all of the committee members. Mr. Burton, do you desire to be heard?

STATEMENT OF HON. PHILLIP BURTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. BURTON of California. Ten days, 1 million words and about 100 hours ago, I had a good number of observations I wanted to make about the legislation. However, all of us are going to have 6 very long hours on the floor to discuss whether the base is high enough. We will have an opportunity, in course of debate, to decide whether or not we want to support the closed rule that I expect the committee may recommend because of the enormous complexity of the legislation.

My fundamental view is the administration is to be commended for taking this sound "first" step. They have stayed within their budget limits, as I suspect most administrations must.

There are those of us who wish there was a lot more money in the bill to help the poor people of this Nation. Perhaps that day will come soon. However, I am not going to take one more second of your time belaboring this bill in any more detail. I think you have been

thoroughly exposed to that time and time again. I would suggest, however, that a modified closed rule be adopted, making a motion in order to raise the $1,600 minimum.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Burton.

Mr. Dennis, you have been around here a considerable time.

STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID W. DENNIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA

Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I will emulate my colleague here from California by being brief, which I would have been in any case, because I claim no particular expertise in this field. My philosophical difficulties with this measure which are considerable, have been very eloquently expressed by Mr. Landrum and others who have appeared here before me.

I came up here for two reasons, basically, one was to get a little bit educated on a very important piece of legislation and the other was because I felt I would be derelict in my duty if I did not at least say a little something on the subject of the rule which you gentlemen are going to have to decide upon. I do not think any of us are in dispute that this is probably as fundamental and sweeping a measure as we are likely to face in some time. It is a new departure, it brings in this whole concept of putting the working poor under a direct Federal subsidy and putting a Federal floor under poverty in this country and putting it all on a Federal basis, and enshrining welfare not as an emergency problem, but as an American right which is written. in for everybody.

Now, it just seems to me it is almost ridiculous, if I may use such language, to bring in a sweeping, fundamental bill like this under a completely closed rule and ask anybody who has any self-respect to swallow it. There is just too much to it. I think the best thing about the Landrum-Burleson substitute is that it at least gives one viable way to have a vote on something meaningful by writing it into the rule as a possibility; and also it defers the decision here on these fundamental questions which really deserve a lot more discussion and consideration, I think, in the Congress and in the country at large than they have had or can have at this time. The Landrum-Burleson substitute enables us to do something which will improve the present setup and will defer these more fundamental things to a later day. Personally, I would like to see a wide open rule. I have some small amendments I might like to offer myself.

If you really want to try to make this proposal work and I, too, doubt that it will, you could easily change some of the provisions of this bill, you could cut out this business about suitable employment, for instance, and you could stop defining suitable employment in terms of a man's past experience so a fellow like I am could almost say that it is not suitable unless you give me a good lawsuit or a seat in the Congress. If you really want to accomplish something you could make a man take any employment he can physically perform. I see nothing wrong with that if you are going to pay him out of the Treasury. Some gentlemen want to open it up and pay out more money. I disagree with them, but I think that, if this is a deliberative body, as we claim it is, they are entitled to do that if they can; as the other body will, when and if we get the measure over there.

The chief point I want to make here today is that in my judgment, with all due respect to everybody-and I have that respect-it degenerates our office when we are asked to accept a measure of this magnitude without being granted any ability to really do anything about it. Debate which cannot lead to any action is not debate, it is not deliberation-it is just idle chatter.

Therefore, I am very much opposed to a closed rule on this bill. I would like to see an open rule, and at the least I would like to see this committee give us a chance to vote on this one substitute measure the Landrum-Burleson substitute that has been proposed here; so that we could have one meaningful decision and would have an opportunity to do something for people who need help without adopting such a sweeping and revolutionary matter without due consideration. We are acting without knowing where we are going or what it is going to cost or how this bill is going to work. I do not see how anybody can buy that and can vote for this bill at this point in time, up or down, without any opportunity to amend. Therefore, if you cannot completely open the rule and give everybody their chance, at least let us get a rule which will separate out these fundamental things for future reference, and which will give us a chance, in the meantime, to do the things which we are all more or less agreed ought to be done.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Dennis. I am in accord with your views, for whatever that is worth.

Mr. DENNIS. I am glad the chairman is.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Ryan.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM F. RYAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. RYAN. Mr. Chairman, I realize the committee is anixous to bring this matter to the floor as soon as possible. Therefore, I certainly do not want to take any extended time of the committee. It had been my intention to detail a number of areas in which I believe this bill could be improved, although I want to commend the Committee on Ways and Means for having brought forth a bill which incorporates the concept of income maintenance which is now a proposition accepted by both major political parties.

I would urge that the benefit levels be raised. $1,600 is totally inadequate. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has pointed out that its lower income budget in New York City is $6,771.

This concept should be extended to cover single adults and childless couples.

A higher percentage of the costs for State supplementary benefits should be borne by the Federal Government. The bill provides 30 percent; it should be at least 50 percent and the matching should not be limited to the poverty line.

Matching for State benefits should extend to the working poor. Under this bill it does not.

I believe the Federal Government should move toward the complete assumption of all costs of the guaranteed annual income, and also should assume 100 percent of the cost for the blind, aged, and disabled. Congress ought not to incorporate into any bill a coercive work

feature, a matter discussed considerably by the committee. If there is going to be a work requirement, at least it ought not to apply to mothers of school-aged children.

Those are some of the points I would have discussed in more detail. I am as anxious as the committee that the matter be brought to the floor, and the leadership is anxious to bring it to the floor. Therefore, I will not make any further comments, except to urge a rule under which my amendments would be in order.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Ryan, what do you think would be the proper amount?

Mr. RYAN. Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that I introduced, in fact, the first income maintenance bill introduced in the Congress. Under my bill benefits are stepped up over a period of 5 years, 1212 percent a year. My view is that it is a modest bill. It would have provided approximately $3,200 for a family of four, without outside earnings, the poverty line. It includes a cost of living differential; it also includes a cost of urban housing differential. I think that the bill still requires, and my bill contains, a 50-percent matching for State supplementation. Actually, $6,000 a year is the floor which the Government ought to provide if we are really serious about solving the crisis in this country.

Mr. SISK. May I ask just one question?

Mr. RYAN. Yes.

Mr. SISK. I do not want to disagree with you or anything. You cited what I think may be an ideal situation for a lot of people.

Mr. RYAN. I was talking ideally.

Mr. SISK. Let me ask how much money in round figures on a $6,000 figure do you feel it would cost the Federal Government? I am talking the Federal Government's share of that. As I understand, you are talking about a 50-percent supplemental from the State; right?

Mr. RYAN. Yes. Let me say I cannot answer exactly what it would cost. If the Federal Government were to assume the whole burden and move to a complete Federal assumption, I believe it would run $23 to $25 billion.

Mr. SISK. Annually?

Mr. RYAN. Yes.

Mr. SISK. Some of the figures we heard today, some figures on this bill as presently cited, indicate that the cost would be probably $14 or $15 billion now with this present bill.

Mr. RYAN. That is not the Ways and Means Committee's estimate, though.

Mr. SISK. Although I understand there was testimony before the committee and I understand Mr. Wilbur Cohen, considered to be fairly reputable in this field, that was the figure he stated, $14 to $15 billion. If that be true-and I am not saying that is true-I could see where your proposition would run $50 or $60 billion.

All I am saying, Bill, is somewhere in this area-and I am as interested in improving welfare, I think, as anyone-we do have to realize we can only do so much. What about those people who are working and producing? Are we just going to forget about them? I wonder how soon they are going to quit and go on welfare. If we

are all going on welfare, who is going to produce the money to pay the welfare?

Mr. RYAN. I think the Committee on Ways and Means has fairly accurately described the cost of the bill, No. 1.

Mr. SISK. I hope so.

Mr. RYAN. Second, the bill, which I introduced, which I talked about, would be about $7 billion. We are not even thinking in terms of $25 billion today.

Mr. SISK. You would have a taxpayers' strike in this country.

Mr. RYAN. Wait a minute. We are spending $30 billion a year in Vietnam. All you have to do is use that money for domestic programs. Mr. SISK. You know you cannot do that and that time will never come, Bill.

That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. RYAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to clarify what I heard of the colloquy there between the gentlemen from California and New York. I was not quite straight. This $23 to $25 billion is, I believe, the figure you used. Was that with State and Federal Government or all Federal?

Mr. RYAN. That would assume that the Federal Government bore the entire cost of the program and there were no State or local costs, Mr. Chairman, and we were talking about a floor of $6,000 a year. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Ryan.

Any questions? Anyone else want to be heard on this? Very well. If not, the committee will go into executive session.

(The following was submitted for inclusion in the record:)

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD L. OTTINGER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have the opportunity to go on record in favor of bringing H.R. 16311, the Family Assistance Act of 1970, to the House floor under an open rule. The bill under consideration is a beginning, but much that we could accomplish under this landmark legislation will be left undone if H.R. 16311 is debated with no opportunity for consideration of amendments.

I have for years advocated drastic revisions in our cumbersome, outmoded, and inequitable welfare system. For far too long we have tolerated a public assistance program that discourages incentives to work, that creates cyclical welfare dependency from generation to generation, that breaks families apart, and that encourages massive migration to overcrowded urban centers in those States which provide high levels of financial support.

It is clearly time to strike out in new directions, for our welfare system has not reduced the deplorable living conditions of the ghetto-dwellers, nor has it seriously affected our widespread hunger and malnutrition, nor has it had the desirable long-range effect of moving individuals from relief rolls to payrolls. The program has been a massive failure, a conclusion now at last widely shared by a majority of the American people, by the Administration, by significant elements of the business community, and by virtually all of our serviceoriented private and public agencies. The Family Assistance Act is a beginning, a minimal platform from which to construct a truly revolutionary approach to the needy people of this Nation, with a firm commitment on our part to the total elimination of poverty and hunger and want in our society. With a Gross National Product rapidly approaching $1 trillion annually, we have no excuse for setting our sights low.

H.R. 16311 incorporates principles that I advanced back in 1968, specifically in its emphasis on jobs and job-training for all able-bodied welfare recipients; establishment of minimum Federal standards for eligibility and for amount of assistance, with greater Federal involvement in the administration and financing of the entire program; and provision of funding for day-care centers to allow