Page images
PDF
EPUB

go into other details of the bill, but each section was carefully designed to meet a need that conferences, study, and experience indicated necessary to a program in aging, that would measure up to its full potentials, without fragmentation.

I think it is very significant that Senator McNamara, who once favored the creation of an Office of Aging in HEW has joined forces in the interest of a U.S. Commission on Aging and has introduced S. 2779, which is identical to H.R. 10014. I have great respect for Senator McNamara's knowledge and dedication to programs that will enrich the lives of older persons and am proud to share honors with him in jointly sponsoring this legislation.

I do not have to express my deep conviction in an action program for our senior citizens. I am concerned that we have delayed so long. Favorable, prompt action on a bill creating a U.S. commission will not only provide the mechanism for action, but will give visibility to the Nation's concern and sincerity in moving ahead to reenlist the elderly in the ranks of proud, productive, and independent Americans.

That is the end of my statement, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BAILEY. Mr. Brademas?

Mr. BRADEMAS. Mr. Chairman, I want to express our appreciation of the fine statement from the gentleman from Rhode Island, who, as we all know, is considered to be the outstanding leader in the House of Representatives, if not in the entire Congress, in the field of health in particular.

May I ask Mr. Fogarty if he is aware if any survey has been undertaken of existing programs in the Federal Government that deal with problems of the aging, a survey along the lines of the one which the chairman of the Special Education Committee of this committee, Mrs. Green, has asked be made of Federal programs in the field of education?

Mr. FOGARTY. We have had several surveys made in the past 15 years, and I don't know of anything constructive coming out of any survey yet. I have been asking the same question for 15 years now in our Committee on Appropriations since the days of Oscar Ewing: "What are we doing about this aging problem?" We have been receiving the same answers up until this last year.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Why is it this special staff, I guess it is called, in HEW, has not been able to meet this problem?

Mr. FOGARTY. In the first place, they were never given enough money or enough staff, and they never had the leadership from the top. We never had a Secretary to my knowledge, that really pushed this program on aging. We just let it drift, and it has been drifting all of these years, and it was the consensus of many of those interested in this problem a few years ago that the White House Conference would bring together and would be the best survey that could be made, because we allowed money to the States to hold meetings at the local level for 2 years prior to the Conference, and then the Conference was held, and some 600 recommendations came out of the Conference, and if you want a blueprint for action, or a survey, the White House Conference on Aging, I think, meets all those requirements and we have a blueprint there, but nothing has been done about it.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Well, if there are those in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare-and I take it for granted that there are who are opposed to the establishment of an independent commission along the lines proposed by your bill, would not one of the best ways to make unnecessary such a commission be to use existing mechanisms more vigorously and more effectively than they are now doing? In other words, if they do not like your idea, why don't they use existing mechanisms to get the job done?

Mr. FOGARTY. Well, for 15 years we have been trying to make them do it, and they haven't done it yet, and we went to the front for them last summer in getting a supplemental appropriation through the Congress to add additional staff, and when the Secretary of HEW appeared before our committee on the 28th and 29th of January this year, the first additional person was put on the day before he appeared before our committee, so that is an example of how this thing has been going for 15 years.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Mr. Chairman, I have no more

Mr. FOGARTY. This will take it completely out of politics, and to the best of my knowledge, of all the people that have written to me and talked to me on that program, I cannot think of 10 people that opposed that approach.

As you say, the Department is not in favor of it, because they do not want to let go of it. No department wants to let go of anything like this, but the President just recommended similar legislation just a short time ago, and establishing a new Institute on Arts and Sciences, I think.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Science and Technology.

Mr. FOGARTY. Science and Technology, and that would be established along the same lines as this bill. It would be put under the executive branch, and not under any one agency of Government, and it seems to me that the idea perhaps was taken from this approach, because this bill was put in, first put before Congress a year ago last

January.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Mr. Chairman, I have no more questions, but if I may, I would like to take advantage of this opportunity to say that we have in the hearing room six young people from the Brethren Volunteer Service, all members of the Church of the Brethren, from Elkhart County, Ind., in my congressional district, who are stationed over at New Windsor, Md., where they are now in training for volunteer service, both in our country and abroad, and I would like to recognize them, and say we are very happy to have you with us.

Mr. BAILEY. Would you please stand, so you could be recognized by the committee?

Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BAILEY. Mr. Frelinghuysen.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, as we might have expected, Mr. Fogarty has supplied us with some interesting testi

mony.

Mr. Fogarty, I have just a few questions. Why is it that you keep emphasizing the importance of keeping this new commission out of politics? One of our reasons for advocating a change in the present setup, you just said, in answering a question of Mr. Brademas, is taking the situation out of politics. Do you think the situation is not

very good as it is presently constituted because it is in politics? Is it because the Department of HEW is taking a political attitude toward some of these things that it is not functioning?

Mr. FOGARTY. No, I do not think they are taking a political attitude at all. My statement said this would guarantee it not getting into politics.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Well, how would that be? I have not studied your bill very carefully, but I would think it might guarantee just the opposite; therein are three members of the commission, two of whom can be of the same political party, and one cannot be the same as those two. I might think it would result in a 2-to-1 political breakdown. If you want to keep it out of politics, I should think you ought to have a commission composed equally of different representatives.

Mr. FOGARTY. We had the same question asked when the White House Conference of Aging Act was before Congress, and that was under a Republican administration, and sponsored by a few Democrats in the Congress, and we were able to keep these conferences, we think, out of politics, and one of your distinguished men from the State of New Jersey played a very important role in the White House Conference, and I believe that he endorses this approach to the pro

gram now.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. But you haven't answered my question, Mr. Fogarty. I recognize that Mr. Cane played a prominent role in the White House Conference, but why, if we want to keep out of politics, do we not have a four-man commission, two of whom would be from the Democratic Party and two from the Republican?

Mr. FOGARTY. Well, you have been in politics as long as I have, and you know that we do not have four-man commissions or two-man commissions, we have three, or five, and whatever party is in power, like in your State or mine, it is generally true throughout the 50 States.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I am not dead sure why we must sort of insulate this commission from politics.

Mr. FOGARTY. Maybe it would not keep it out of politics, but I would think it would lessen the chances of politics getting into the program.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Having a 2 to 1 in favor of one political party would lessen the chances?

Mr. FOGARTY. Yes, I do, or 4 to 3, or 5 to 4.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I am not dead sure why you feel that reshuffling the existing agencies interested in the problems of the aging by imposing the new, so to speak, top-level commission, is going to do much to solve some of the problems which you say are not getting adequate attention today. You are assigning very substantial responsibilities, as I understand it, to the new commission.

Simply the function of serving as an information center for all the Members of Congress who may have constituents with problems connected with aging, or as a direct responsibility between Washington and the people back home without utilizing Congress at all, I would think we could get a superagency of some size, if it is to do the job adequately.

In addition to that, as I understand it, you are proposing that this be a policy group to coordinate and set up the responsibility for new

projects to get more effective treatment of some of these problems, and as I understand it, there are going to be 20 advisory members, under the 3-man commission. Is that right?

Mr. FOGARTY. That is right.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. How much of a staff under those would be necessary, in order to function effectively in these various fields? Have you given this an estimate?

Mr. FOGARTY. No, I do not have any estimate there.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. But you think it would be something of considerable size?

Mr. FOGARTY. It would be, and I think it should be.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. And I would think, again-

Mr. FOGARTY. The size does not bother me. The problem does.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Well, size does bother me.

Mr. FOGARTY. Well, the size does not bother me one single bit. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We have a tendency to grow, and this is going to solve the problems, but I am not sure the growth of Federal bureaucracy alone is going to be the solution so very much.

What worries me is why, if we are going to set up a new agency or outfit or entity-call it what you will-we do not transfer some responsibilities out of the different departments into the new unit, if coordination and efficiency and more direct approach to some of these problems is what is desired.

The result is not going to be to make the Department of HEW function more effectively, if all we are doing is setting up a superagency to watch over the shoulder of HEW, and they do not want to do it. If it is a question of not being interested in moving on these problems, how is this going to make them move?

Mr. FOGARTY. Well, there is so little being done in the 12 or 13 agencies that have some interest in this problem of aging that it would have little effect on the statement you have just made, in my opinion.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Well, if so little is being done, my question is, How are we going to get it to be done by setting up a new agency on top of these 12 or 13? Why do not we transfer the functions that need to be done, the responsibilities that are not being carried out by the 12 or 13, put them in a new unit, and give them the direct responsibility for getting something done? Isn't that the way to accomplish something?

[ocr errors]

Mr. FOGARTY. This would, in effect, accomplish that, but I do not think it means much, because there is not anything being done now. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. You mean setting up a new agency is not going to renew a new Government entity is not going to mean much? Mr. FOGARTY. Oh, I think so, but you seem to think about transferring responsibility and jobs out of existing agencies, while there isn't much responsibility or work being carried on by any agency of Government now.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Well, that is all the more reason why, if we want something to be done, I should think we ought to set up a group that could do it.

Mr. FOGARTY. This is what this bill would do.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. How can it do it? You mean, it is going to have the job of getting something done? As I understand it, it is an advisory, coordinating body?

Mr. FOGARTY. No, that is going to have complete authority for setting up programs in the States on all aspects of aging.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. It takes over the responsibility that should be exercised by the 12 or 13 Government agencies which now have responsibility?

Mr. FOGARTY. That is right.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. And it is taking away from those agencies that responsibility in order that it can bypass them entirely andMr. FOGARTY. That is right.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I regret to say I did not realize that there was actually a transfer of responsibility to this new outfit.

Mr. FOGARTY. Well, I am sorry I did not make it plain to you.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BAILEY. Mr. O'Hara?

Mr. O'HARA. I want to say to the gentleman from Rhode Island that I have had the privilege of taking part in a number of hearings on this subject, and hearing a large number of witnesses, and that although there is some disagreement among them as to how this should be done organizationally, I might say to the gentleman from Rhode Island that there is practically unanimous feeling that there exists a great need for stimulation and coordination of various Federal programs which involve problems of the aged and the aging, and that your bill has created a very considerable response among people who have taken it upon themselves to work with the aged and the aging in all the places that we have visited, and among witnesses from all parts of the country which have appeared before this committee.

The organizational aspects of this, as the gentleman understands, I am certain, are the real problem to a lot of our witnesses.

Might I just ask the gentleman: The Commission that is proposed by your legislation would be what we sometimes refer to as an independent commission? Is that correct?

Mr. FOGARTY. That is right.

Mr. O'HARA. The members of the Commission would be named by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and they would have definite tenure of office and could not be removed with a change of administration, let us say?

Mr. FOGARTY. That is right.

Mr. O'HARA. One of the problems that has been brought up by some witnesses in effect this one: That they say, well, we create an independent commission, and we assign them the responsibility of handling these dealings with the State commissions, and so forth, but with regard to the housing program, it remains in HHFA. The health programs remain under HEW, and even if the Commission said what we need is to have this, this, and this done with regard to health, and this particular item done with regard to housing, which is under HHFA, and we ought to have a program to amend social security in such-and-such a fashion, and that is under HEW, that because there is no authority by the Commission over these other departments of Government, there is no assurance that it might be done.

I wonder if the gentleman from Rhode Island would care to comment on this question that has been raised before the committee?

« PreviousContinue »