As long as the Foster Grandparent Program is a "volunteer" program-a label which would seem inaccurate since the program participants are regularly paid-comparisons of the pay scales for Foster Grandparents and Senior Aides is not appropriate.

Senior Aides are employees, and they pay taxes-income and F.I.C.A. on their wages.

Foster Grandparents receive "stipends" which are neither taxable, nor counted as income for benefit programs.

The National Council supports the logical provision of Foster Grandparent legislation that does not allow Foster Grandparent stipends to be counted as "income" for other poverty programs such as medicaid, food stamps and housing. The National Council would like to see such a provision in Title IX. However, even in view of the forgiveness of participant's stipends in calculating eligibility for other programs, we do not believe that a $1.60 per hour meets any standard of equitable exchange-Foster Grandparents services are worth more than the alloted stipend. Further, as Foster Grandparents receive pay for time and services, the stipend is really a wage and this wage is far below either the minimum or the prevailing wage rate.

It is also important to continue to provide for older workers employed in these programs opportunities to qualify, through this employment, for Social Security and Medicare. This is denied those who receive only "stipends' and who do not have Social Security deductions.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I would like to place in the record a letter to me from the State of California Commission on Aging, which I think delineates the so-called trail of horrors that senior citizens are required to travel.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Without objection the letter is included and again we thank you for your splendid testimony. [The letter referred to follows:]

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COMMISSION ON AGING, Sacramento, Calif., January 30, 1975. DEAR SIR: The California Commission on Aging, at their meeting on December 12, 1974 in Sacramento, adopted the following Resolution:

Whereas, the impact of inflation has totally eroded and invalidated the purchasing power of the increases in monthly Social Security benefits enacted since 1965 (approximately 80% compounded) and,

Whereas, the cost of Medicare deductibles, co-payments and premiums assigned to the recipient have increased approximately 125% since 1966 with additional increases pending and,

Whereas, the abuses of the Medicare program, Medicaid and its related programs including fraud are contributing to the increasing cost of the program and the lowering of the quality of care and,

Whereas, the record of the present policy on these issues proves the total inadequacy of the "patch-work" approach to remedial legislation, Therefore, be it Resolved, That this Commission, a duly constituted agency of the State of California, call upon the Congress of the United States to establish a new National Policy on Aging which will provide a totally comprehensive and equitable program of health care and an assured level of income for the elderly which is commensurate with a standard of living above the acknowledged poverty level and in keeping with the need and with human dignity.

We petition the Congress to rearrange its legislative priorities and put the economic and social interest of American people FIRST, by so doing you can assure a greater degree of comfort, care and dignity to the ever-increasing population of older Americans and, be it further resolved, copies of this resolution be forwarded to all members of the California Congressional delegation, Senators Frank Church, Harrison Williams, Charles Percy and Jocob Javits, and Representative Claude Pepper."

It is apparent that the California Commission on Aging, together with millions of other Americans, is greatly disturbed about recent actions in Washington placing additional penalties on the elderly of this nation.

We know that all of you share our concern and will do everything within your power to correct the situation. We appreciate it.

Sincerely,

BOONE ROBINSON, Executive Secretary.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Our next witness is another friend of the subcommittee, Mr. Jack Ossofsky, executive director of the National Council on the Aging.

Mr. Ossofsky, we are glad to see you and again if you would be good enough to summarize your testimony, principal recommendations, it will afford an opportunity to put questions to you.

STATEMENT OF JACK OSSOFSKY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
THE NATIONAL COUNCIL ON THE AGING

Mr. OSSOFSKY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am accompanied by Daniel Fork, director of public policy for the National Council on the Aging.

Mr. Chairman, in the second week of his holding the office of President, the President invited the representatives of aging organizations to meet with him. We spent about an hour with the President in the company of other organizational representatives, at the end of which I had an opportunity to meet with the press to indicate to them I have sensed a very concerned President, one well-informed on legislation affecting older people.

Between that date in August and today something has happened to that concern, it seems to me. We urged the President at that time not to seek to break the back of inflation on the backs of older people, who are the most vulnerable segment of our society. Today I must say to you we seem to find the older people of our country caught in a vise between rescission and recession. Indeed, nothing in the budget that we see, from a quick reading today, or that we have heard in the course of hearings from representatives of the administration or others, lead us to believe that any concern has been shown whatsoever for America's older people in this current situation. We are a nonpartisan group and we welcome the point of view of the President regardless of his party and the action of all Members of Congress on behalf of older people.

We come before you with pleasure at the fact you have given great priority to the issue of the Older Americans Act and to bring the concerns of older Americans before the Congress so early in this session. I must say, too, Mr. Chairman, we are greatly encouraged by the number of new Members of the Congress who are on this committee and participated so actively in these hearings. We hope that it represents not just a new day for the Congress, but a new day for older people of our country as well and that we will be able in this Congress to see into the kinds of policies being enunicated from the White House, which I am afraid shows there are poor advices being given to the President, if indeed his concern for the older Americans remains true. Now our organization is a nonprofit organization made up of organizations and practitioners in a field of aging. Our members are largely those who serve older people. We entered the 25th year of our history in 1975 and with the initials of our organization NCO we were hoping the country would indeed take on a national commitment on aging.

Certainly the budget does not seem to give us much confidence in 1975 being a year with a national commitment on aging from the White House.

In anticipation of the deliberations on the Older Americans Act, our own organization has invited its members to submit their concepts and notions about their experiences with the Older Americans Act and our public policy committee of the board is going to be meeting and developing formal policies on the Older Americans Act.

We are holding four, perhaps five regional meetings across the country of people working in fields of aging and of older people and much of that meeting will focus on the Older Americans Act and how it functions.

On February 6 and 7 we are convening 164 national voluntary organizations, who will be discussing, among other things, the impact of the Older Americans Act in promoting independent living for older people.

This morning the governing body of the National Institute of Senior Citizens with representatives from all regions of the country are convening their national meeting and will be drafting a statement regarding the renewal of this Act as well. Based on all of this information we intend to be in contact with the committee to submit to you further information and further points of view regarding the legislation before you.

In a preliminary way, I would like to read some questions and perhaps and enter a few regarding the experiences with the Older Americans Act.

One of the concerns that is reflected in our testimony, Mr. Chairman, is that the purposes of the Older Americans Act falls into two basic categories, and one is the Administration on Aging is asked to act as a manager of two formula grant programs, titles III and VII in particular, as well as a focal point for the Federal Government on all matters relating to the elderly.

We are delighted with the untiring efforts and dedication of Commissioner Flemming in attempting to carry out those mandates, but we must, at the same time, underscore the fact that without the adequate resources needed to meet the purposes laid out in the act, the Administration on Aging, and Commissioner Flemming, indeed, cannot reach objectives spelled out in title I of the Act.

Perhaps it is worth taking a moment to remind ourselves what that Act was intended to do in title I. The objectives are quite explicit. It spells out the purposes of the Older Americans Act is to help mobilize forces to provide an adequate retirement income, suitable housing, physical and mental health, restorative services, employment opportunities, dignified retirement, the pursuit of meaningful activity, efficient community services, benefits from research and personal independence.

Somehow it seems to me along the way in the last 10 years we have lost sight of the original intentions of the Act. None of us should be deceived by the impressive growth in resources within the Administration on Aging into thinking that the original objectives of the Act have been achieved. Indeed, what we really have done is to allocate substantial new resources for valid new programs, particularly the nutrition program, particularly title III, community coordination, but we have in many instances reduced the funds made available to meet objectives of the Older Americans Act as they appear in title I of that Act.

In this 10th year of the Older Americans Act and Administration on Aging we must ask ourselves, Mr. Chairman, whether the central purposes of the original Act have been adequately addressed and I must, with regret, answer that the answer is "no." Throughout its history and to the present day AOA has been burdened with a discrepancy between its general mandate and the resources provided to achieve its objectives.

Certainly we made progress in meeting some purposes and in adding new purposes to the act, but all too often any improvement heralded. as a grand achievement is too little too late. Perhaps we ought to underscore one other point here and that is that the committee has, at times in the past, authorized open end appropriations or no specific appropriations for many titles of the act. Open authorizations have too often led to inadequate appropriations or, as is true in cases of titles V and VIII, no appropriations whatsoever.

While we understand the complex legislative process involved, we deplore the increasing penalty of Congress and the administration to raise the hopes of older Americans by enacting new programs which are then never funded and never implemented.

We ask this committee to do all in its power to alter that specific situation. Let's stop giving false hopes to people by putting good words on the record and then not putting adequate numbers to meet

those words.

Now, the future of the area agencies on aging is a prime issue before us. They are created largely out of the 1973 amendments and they follow substantially the directions of the Administrator on Aging itself, sharing two mandates: administrative role of developing, planning, and coordinating the delivery of support in gaps in services provided under titles III and VII; and a stimulating coordinating role to use, or to pool the untapped resources of a community itself. It is very early in the game to make a very adequate assessment of the mixed bag that the area agencies on aging represent at this

moment.

We would therefore, suggest raising some questions which this committee might want to explore as deliberations on the future of the area agencies on aging are planned and examined. Let me underscore that the National Council on Aging supports the concept of area agencies on aging-provided they give an adequate leeway and adequate resources to properly coordinate both central and local funds and

programs.

One program that this Congress is not unaware of is of course, that anybody designated as a coordinator faces a very real problem. Everybody wants to be the coordinator and nobody wants to be the coordinatee.

At the local level this presents the area agencies on aging a very real problem of getting together TV networks, both public and private. One aspect of the area agencies on aging's problem is the dilemma that they are bound to face rather quickly-the assumption there are local resources and funds to be coordinated. If indeed such resources exist at the local level, leaving aside for the moment the private sector, if they exist in the public sector why indeed the great pressure for revenue. sharing?

1. ARE THE RESOURCES OF THE ADMINISTRATION ON AGING ADEQUATE FOR FULFILLING ITS ROLE?

This Committee is well aware, Mr. Chairman, of the recent growth in the budget and programs of the Administration on Aging. NCOA has continually supported that development because we are convinced there is not a more effective or efficient method for the Federal government to address the unique needs of America's older people. AoA has been given two broad responsibilities: (1) to act as manager of two formula grant service related programs for older people (Titles III and VII); and (2) to act as a focal point within the Federal government for aging matters.

We applaud the untiring and dedicated efforts of Commissioner Flemming in attempting to carry out these mandates. We feel strongly, however, that without additional resources, AoA cannot begin to achieve the objectives outlined in Title I of the Act.

Those objectives are quite explicit: an adequate retirement income, suitable housing, physical and mental health, restorative services, employment opportunities, dignified retirement, the pursuit of meaningful activity, efficient community services, benefits from research, and personal independence. I have taken the time to mention these goals because I feel somewhere along the way we have lost sight of the original intentions of the Act. None of us should be deceived by the suddent and impressive growth in AoA's budget into thinking that those objectives are being adequately addressed. The funds allocated to income, education, training, research, employment and physical/mental health services have been meager indeed.

1975 will mark the ten-year anniversary of AoA. We must ask ourselves, Mr. Chairman, whether the central purposes of the original Act have been adequately addressed. I think the answer is clearly no. Throughout its history and into the present day, AoA has been burdened with a discrepancy between its general mandates and the resources provided to achieve those ends. Certainly progress has been made in some areas, but too often any improvement heralded as a grand achievement is, in fact, too little and too late.

We encourage the Committee to authorize specific amounts for each Title of the Older Americans Act based on the original intentions of the Act and on the continuing needs of older people. Open authorizations have too often led to inadequate appropriations, or, as in the case of Titles V and VIII, no appropriations at all. While we understand the complex legislative process involved, we deplore the increasing tendency of the Congress and the Administration to raise the hopes of older people by enacting new programs which are never funded or implemented. We ask this Committee to do all in its power to alter that situation.

2. WHAT SHOULD BE THE FUTURE OF THE AREA AGENCIES ON AGING?

As this Committee is aware, the 1973 Amendments to the Older Americans Act authorized the establishment of planning and service areas within each state. These substate planning bodies-Area Agencies on Aging (AAA's)—share the two mandates given AoA as a whole:

(1) The administrative role of developing, planning, and coordinating the delivery of support and gap-filling services provided for under Titles III and VII of the Act; and,

(2) The stimulative role of encouraging and pooling the use of untapped community resources to meet the needs of the elderly.

The reports which we receive from the field on the AAA's are mixed. It is clear that they are still in their formative stages. While NCOA supports the basic concept, there are a number of questions which must be answered before a final judgment on the future of the AAA's can be made.

Have the AAA's been provided with adequate resources to achieve their mandated roles? Without sufficient funds and competent personnel, they cannot achieve the difficult task of mobilizing and refocusing existing community resources for the elderly.

Are the two major roles mandated to the AAA's complementary, or will they inevitably result in internal organizational conflict?

Is there a need to further clarify the relationship between the AAA's and the state units on aging?

How successful have the AAA's been in involving local governments in their work?