Page images
PDF
EPUB

Increases in title XX funding would be similar to rises in social security benefits and would reflect rises in the cost of living. The first increase would be effective in fiscal 1978, thus permitting the Congress to include this higher figure in its budget targets. Also by 1978 HEW estimates that most States will be spending their full title XX allotments. I know there are going to be many witnesses here today who are going to do a very thorough job with respect to the next part of my testimony, and so I have only gotten into it briefly to convey to the committee, or to take the opportunity to tell this committee of my concerns.

I oppose H.R. 12175, the administration's bloc grant proposal. This bill does not increase the $2.5 billion ceiling and contains no maintenance of effort requirement. In essence, title XX would be another revenue-sharing program. The only assurance that the funds would be spent on social service programs is the State plan submitted to the Secretary. However, there is no guarantee that the poor, the aged, and the powerless, the beneficiaries of the social service programs, will participate in this process.

Furthermore, if the administration's bloc grant proposal is adopted, then States would get their full allotment whether they could use it or not. It is possible that services would be supported solely by the Federal money and, therefore, 25 percent less funds would be spent on social programs. The net effect of the administration's proposal could be a cut in social services spending. The administration claims the current law is too burdensome for the States. Yet title XX already gives the States a great deal of flexibility in spending for social service programs.

At the same time the administration is advocating the distribution of dollars without strings, they are restricting the discretion of the States to establish eligibility for these programs. The administration bill requires that 75 percent of those receiving services be recipients of welfare, medicaid, or SSI. This change from the current 50 percent would leave inadequate funds for services to the working poor whose needs are equally great.

Further, I would urge that the provisions of H.R. 9280, which I am cosponsoring, be included in any reform of title XX. This bill provides for a group sampling procedure to be substituted for the individual means test for senior citizens to insure that their unique. needs are met by title XX programs. While I strongly support H.R. 12455 which postpones implementation of the means test, I believe a more permanent solution such as that contained in H.R. 9280 is required.

The administration's bill is particularly onerous for those of us concerned with high standards for our child care centers. It goes much further than previous legislation which postponed standards by completely repealing mandatory child care requirements. The States would be completely free to set their own standards. The original study of these requirements is due in 1977 and HEW has pledged to carry it out, yet already they are rejecting the concept of Federal standards. I oppose the effort to completely eliminate standards though some changes may have to be made on local levels.

74-332-76———4

As for the Senate amendments to H.R. 12455, I fully support the provision of additional funds for child care centers to our States. The failure of the Senate to override the Preseident's veto of H.R. 9803 leaves the Nation's child care centers in a precarious financial position and in some areas, such as New York, many may be shut down.

When President Ford vetoed this bill, his objections were based on the imposition of Federal standards for day care centers on all the States. He felt that this matter should be left to the individual States. The President did not dispute the need for additional funds for child care nor the need to generally upgrade standards in child care centers. A 1974 GAO study of 607 centers in nine States found failing to meet State health and safety requirements, nearly twice the number failing to meet child-staff ratios. Regardless of whether the Federal Government or the State governments promulgate staffing and other standards, our child care centers desperately need additional funds. so that they can continue to provide quality child care.

We have a responsibility to make sure that we can get this legislation back into work and get the funding to allow the States to meet the Federal standards. My bills try to deal with some immediate problems by reallocating the title XX surplus, and by raising the title XX ceilings to give States a more equitable share of Federal funds.

I am pleased to see my colleague here from New York, Mr. Rangel, whose work in this field has been very significant, and whose help we look to, as we do our chairman's, as well as Mr. Stark from California, who is a dear colleague of mine.

I thank all the gentlemen here today. It is always a pleasure to come before your friends, even if you don't always get what you ask for, because it makes it easier to be denied. But I hope some of these problems, and I know you share the concerns I have for all these questions, and I really only tried to deal with a couple of aspects of the problem this morning. I know you have some very significant witnesses who are leaders in the field and who have given great leadership over the years.

Ms. Wickenden is here and many other people. I am afraid I am going to eliminate some people and they will get mad. They are all great witnesses; that is, all that agree with me.

[The attachments to the statement follow:]

[H.R. 14263, 94th Cong., 2d sess.]

A BILL To amend XX of the Social Security Act to provide that the existing dollar limitation on the amount of Federal funds available for social services thereunder shall be increased from time to time to reflect rises in the cost of living

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 2002 (a) (2) of the Social Security Act is amended

(1) by inserting ", or such higher figure as may be established for the year involved under subparagraph (E)," after "$2,500,000,000" in subparagraph (A):

(2) by inserting "or (in the case of each such jurisdiction) such higher figure as may be established for the year involved under subparagraph (E)," before "which shall be available" in subparagraph (D); and

(3) by adding after subparagraph (D) the following new subparagraph: "(E) Whenever benefit amounts under title II are increased by any percentage effective with the month of June in any calendar year (commencing with the calendar year 1977) as a result of a determination made under section 215 (i), the dollar amount in effect for the fiscal year in which such determination is made under subparagraph (A), and each of the dollar amounts

in effect for such fiscal year under subparagraph (D), as specified in such subparagraph or as previously increased under this subparagraph, shall be increased by the same percentage (and rounded, when not a multiple of $10,000,000 in the case of the dollar amount under subparagraph (A), a multiple of $100,000 in the case of the first dollar amount under subparagraph (D), or a multiple of $10,000 in the case of the other two dollar amounts under subparagraph (D), to the next higher such multiple), effective for the fiscal year beginning on October 1 of such calendar year; and such dollar amounts as so increased shall be published in the Federal Register together with, and at the same time as, the material required by section 215(i) (2) (D) to be published therein by reason of such determination.".

SEC. 2. The amendments made by the first section of this Act shall be effective with respect to fiscal years beginning on and after October 1, 1977.

[H.R. 14264, 94th Cong., 2d sess.]

A BILL To amend title XX of the Social Security Act to provide for the reallotment of unused Federal funds for social services, in any fiscal year, to States whose regular allotments of such funds were insufficient to meet their needs (giving first priority to States which would otherwise have to close existing facilities)

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) section 2002 (a) (2) (C) of the Social Security Act is amended by inserting before the period at the end thereof the following: ", and for reallotment as provided in subparagraph (E)”.

(b) Section 2002(a)(2) of such Act is further amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subparagraph:

"(E) Of the amounts made available pursuant to subparagraph (C) for any fiscal year, the Secretary, after making the allotments provided for in subparagraph (D), shall reallot the balance (if any) among the States which certified (pursuant to subparagraph B)) that the amount of their allotments was less than the amount of their need for such fiscal year. Reallotments under this subparagraph shall be made

"(i) first, to States which require additional funds (and will use such reallotments exclusively) to prevent the closing of facilities, already in operation or the termination of activities already being conducted, and

"(ii) to the extent that any portion of such balance remains, to States which will use such reallotments to meet such need in other ways. The amount realloted to any such State for any fiscal year under either clause (i) or (ii) shall bear the same ratio to the total amount available for reallotment under such clause for such year as the amount of such State's allotment (as determined without regard to this subparagraph) bore to the total amount allotted to all States for such fiscal year (as so determined); except that there shall not be reallotted to any State under this subparagraph a total amount which exceeds the difference between such State's allotment (as so determined) and the amount such State certified it would need for such year pursuant to subparagraph (B). Any amount reallotted to a State under this subparagraph for ang fiscal year shall, for purposes of this title, be added to and deemed a part of such State's allotment for such year (as determined without regard to this subparagraph).".

SEC. 2. The amendments made by the first section of this Act shall apply with respect to amounts made available pursuant to section 2001(a)(2)(C) of the Social Security Act for fiscal years ending on or after June 30, 1976 (including the fiscal year determined under section 101 of the Fiscal Year Transition Act). Mr. CORMAN. Thank you very much. Mr. Rangel?

Mr. RANGEL. I certainly agree with the thrust of my colleague's testimony, and I recognize that she has legislation which I hope will be coming before this committee where we will be able to get some response from the administration as opposed to always reacting to the administration.

With the block grant, as much as I oppose it for a variety of reasons, you refer to that part of it which gives me the greatest trouble. That is the changing of the formula by the administration requiring 75 per

cent of those receiving services be recipients of welfare and SSI and medicare.

The problem is that, as the chairman says, our responsibility is to shift the funds from one set of poor to another set of poor, and that has been the choice the administration has placed before this committee. But given the fact of restricted funds. how strongly do you feel, that the administration request or demand that 75 percent go to those below the poverty line as opposed to the 50 percent which attempts to assist the working poor?

Ms. ABZUG. I tell you what the problem with it is that occurs to me and you are all more expert than I because you study it all the time, but I think what happens in a thing like this is that people now getting services would be deprived of them. I think what we do essentially with a program like that is to put people, sort of deepen our poverty problem with this kind of a shift.

I am somewhat concerned about that.

Mr. RANGEL. Are you saying that by not giving assistance to the working poor, that you throw them below the poverty line and then they get on welfare?

Ms. ABZUG. Yes, that is what I am concerned with. The people are relying upon this assistance at this time.

I know that unfortunately what we are dealing with all the time is limited funds for the needs of people just to survive and exist, with all kinds of money for cost overruns in many programs of all kinds, and there are enormous expenditures of feeding people, as against the concerns of people who just need this money to survive.

I fear this kind of shift based upon what is actually in existence now really will deprive people who are depending upon these funds for existence, and subsistence really, and will create another shift, and will create a whole new area of people in poverty.

Mr. RANGEL. We are talking about whether we give the majority of the money to those who need it for survival or whether or not we continue to allow some funds to be set aside to assist those people who are working, who are not on welfare, but who need some help. It is a difficult problem of replacement.

Ms. ABZUG. I am sure it is, and as I said, my solutions are a little different than the administration's obviously. My solution is that we have to deal with the whole spectrum, but I think we get ourselves into a somewhat difficult position at this point if we shift people who are depending on this, and simply, throw them off the rolls.

Mr. CORMAN. I just want to thank you again, and tell you of my dilemma and this committee's dilemma; there are so many more needs than we can find funds to alleviate. We will do our best. It is people like you, who understand the complexity and the human tragedy of the problems who are a great source of support.

We appreciate it.

MS. ABZUG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.

Mr. CORMAN. The next group of witnesses is from the American Public Welfare Association: Mr. Herschel Saucier, Evan E. Jones and Neil Peterson.

We are pleased to welcome you to the committee. If you have prepared statements that you would like to submit for the record, you may, but proceed however you are comfortable.

A PANEL FROM THE AMERICAN PUBLIC WELFARE ASSOCIATION CONSISTING OF H. HERSCHEL SAUCIER, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES; EVAN E. JONES, JR., DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF FAMILY SERVICES, UTAH DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES; AND NEIL PETERSON DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF COMMUNITY SERVICES, WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. SAUCIER. Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the opportunity to appear before the committee. We would rather proceed informally.

We represent three States, and we also represent the National Council of State Public Welfare Administrators. We want to share with you some of our own experiences as State administrators in regard to the problems and values of title XX and make some comparison with respect to the proposed block grant.

We will comment, and we would like to respond to your concerns about State experiences, if you would like to proceed in that way. We don't have prepared statements, but we have areas that we would like to mention.

Mr. CORMAN. Fine.

Mr. SAUCIER. Let me begin by reminding the committee, and you are already aware of it, of the tremendous public input in the development of legislation that finally ended up in the form of title XX. I think never has any social service legislation had as much grassroots participation as this piece of legislation.

The Governors' Conference was very active in trying to get some consensus from Governors throughout the country. State administrators and the American Public Welfare Association as well as a coalition of national organizations and those persons concerned with providing human services made a tremendous investment in title XX. I make this point to reinforce the statement that I feel, and the Council of State Public Welfare Administrators feel, that we should consider very seriously any major changes in title XX without studies and experience to base them upon.

We have had some problems. Title XX had much promise. We think it is a good law with some minor problems. We are well aware of the controversy about child care standards, and the Congress is addressing this issue. It is a legislative or legal problem. Many of the problems we have experienced during the past year have been related to very restrictive DIIEW regulations.

We are glad to report to this committee that considerable relief has been given in regard to the eligibility issue by revisions of regulations back in April by HEW. When I appeared before this committee some weeks ago, we tried to outline the fact that the major controversy related to having to document eligibility. It was wasteful, time consuming, dehumanizing, and Georgia's experience since the regulations were changed has been that it has been well received, that there has been effort on the part of all providers, including those who are providing services to senior citizens, to utilize the flexibility that Georgia is offering through providing a declaratory route in determining eligibility for services.

« PreviousContinue »