Nation. The fact is that politicians tend to run against the poor, and people in your role and our subcommittee have some special obligation to try to counter that.

We welcome your support in that great effort, too. It is good working with you, and we appreciate your assistance.

Monsignor CORCORAN. Thank you.

Mr. CORMAN. The next witnesses are from the Black Child Development Institute, Maurine McKinley and Wendell Robinson.

STATEMENT OF MAURINE MCKINLEY, ASSOCIATION DIRECTOR, BLACK CHILD DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE, ACCOMPANIED BY WENDELL C. ROBINSON, PROGRAM SPECIALIST

Ms. MCKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, my name is Mrs. Maurine McKinley. I am the associate director of the Black Child Development Institute. Accompanying me is Wendell C. Robinson, a program specialist with the institute.

The Black Child Development Institute is a nonprofit membership and affiliate organization. We are active in 27 States working with community grassroots groups to:

(a) Improve the quality of their child development and child welfare programs through workshops and direct technical assist

ance;

(b) Monitor national, State, and local legislation and train local monitors of relevant public policy issues; and

(c) Communicate and share their problems and solutions with each other. In addition, the Institute has 13 affiliate groups across the country. They are:

1. Portland Advocacy Association for Black Children, Portland, Oregon.

2. Pasadena Black Child Advocacy Council, Pasadena, California

3. Black Child Development Advocate Consortium of Colorado, Denver, Colorado.

4. The Washington Committee for Day Care, Inc., Washington, D.C.

5. Georgia Federation for Early Childhood Education, Atlanta, Georgia.

6. Black Child Development Association, Chicago, Illinois. 7. Black Child Development Committee of Seattle, Seattle, Washington.

8. Mississippi Federation of Child Development Centers, Inc., Jackson, Mississippi.

9. North Carolina Federation of Child Development Centers, Whitaker, N.C.

10. Midland Federation of Child Development Centers, Inc., Columbia, S.C.

11. Bay Area Black Child Advocacy Coalition, San Francisco, California.

12. South Los Angeles Black Child Advocacy Coalition, Los Angeles, California.

13. Black Coalition for Eduction of Young Children, New Castle, Delaware.

H.R. 12175 offered by the administration would grant virtually total autonomy to the States to run their social service programs as they see fit. The bill abnegates the current Federal role of approving certain aspects of the State's title XX plan in favor of allowing the State to take control over every aspect of planning their respective social services program.

To illuminate our concerns over this legislation, we would like to discuss each of the pertinent sections of the legislation:

First, section 101, would authorize the expenditure of social services as a block grant. Federal money would not be contingent upon a State's ability to match Federal moneys. This undobtedly would result in a reduction in the amount of the State's own money it will voluntarily commit to social services. In the past, States have been reluctant to commit State moneys to social service programs as is evidenced by the Federal revenue sharing program.

Second, under section 105, contrary to the administration's belief, more services will not be offered to the recipients. The legislation requires 75 percent of the Federal funds to be devoted to those either eligible, for or in receipt of welfare, medicaid, supplemental security income (SSI) benefits or, to those whose income is below the poverty line. This appears to offer more services to social services program recipients. To demonstrate how this is misleading we must digress for a moment.

The legislation repeals, via sections 108, 110, 111, 112 and 113, various earlier provisions of title XX which prohibited the expenditure of the Federal funds in a given area. The affect of repealing these prohibitions, beside relinquishing Federal control, is to increase the number of people eligible to receive services under title XX while the amount of money available ($2.5 billion) remains constant.

Third, under section 109, the administration would repeal the previously mandatory Federal Interagency Day Care Requirements. While the Federal Government, in the words of HEW Secretary Matthews, "does not have a monopoly on concern for children or on expertise in this area." The repeal of the educational component in the day care standards in 1975 and now the total abnegation of those standards is evidence of the administration shirking it's responsibility to the children of this Nation in the same vain that it declared that responsibility when creating the office of child development in 1969.

Fourth, section 113 repealed the State requirement that States maintain the level of funding for those services ending in June 30, 1973, or the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974 with respect to payments made under the State plan approved under title I, VI, X, XIV, XVI, or part A of title IV. This makes it unlikely that the State, without any encouragement from the Federal Government, will continue to funnel State funds into social service programs. Therefore, the $101 million increase alleged by the administration is not an increase which will meet the needs of all the new category of individuals who are now eligible for title XX funds and services.

Finally, we are in some respects pleased with the group eligibility section and the increase from 50 to 75 percent of the Federal funds which are to be offered to title XX recipients. However, the good points of the bill are negated by the potential and realistic negative

effects of total State control over the social services program without Federal guidelines.

We feel that H.R. 12175 can still be turned into a viable piece of legislation; with the following changes:

(a) Sections 106 and 107 should be amended to allow the States. to incorporate a fee schedule if they so desire. The language in section 107 which allows group eligibility should be retained; (b) Sections 108, 110, 111, 112 should be retained only if the cost of providing for the potential recipients from those programs, previously denied funds under title XX, is transferred to the social services program of the State;

(c) Sections 113, 115 should be repealed in their entirety. Until such time as the Federal Government is assured that the States will not refrain from committing State moneys into the social services program and the needs of the recipients are being met;

(d) Section 109 should be repealed and the 1968 Federal Interagency Guidelines continued to be used as a guide for high quality standards for child care with the reinstatement of the educational component in the standards:

H.R. 12175 represents, as written, total State control over State run programs. The instittue is concerned that recalcitrant States may not provide certain services which are needed by recipients and may not contribute State moneys to the social services programs run in the State. The suggestions which we offer would accomplish the same objectives which the administration is seeking. The amendments would still give the States total control over the social services programs while insuring that the number of eligible recipients does not increase out of proportion to the available funds for the program and at the same time provide quality child care without increased cost.

We would also like to take this opportunity to stress the need for. for the passage of legislation similar to H.R. 9803, recently vetoed by the President and sustained by the Senate. Since that legislation is now dead, the most viable alternative is H.R. 12455 passed by the U.S. House of Representatives; and referred to the U.S. Senate Finance Committee. We strongly support H.R. 12455 with the inclusion of the Mondale-Packwood amendment which incorporates the essential provisions of H.R. 9803.

We sincerely hope that the committee will consider our suggestions during markup of H.R. 12175, if it should reach that stage of the legislative process. We thank the committee for offering us this opportunity to discuss H.R. 12175 and offer our assistance in the future to this committee.

Mr. RANGEL [presiding]. Thank you for your statement. Are there any questions from counsel?

Mr. HAWLEY. No questions.

Mr. JENSEN. No questions.

Mr. RANGEL. Thank you, Ms. McKinley. Your thoughts and those of your organization will be considered by the full committee and the subcommittee at the appropriate times.

The committee will call John B. Martin, consultant to the American Association of Retired Persons, and also Laurence Lane, legislative representative, National Retired Teachers Association.

STATEMENT OF JOHN B. MARTIN, SPECIAL CONSULTANT, AS PRESENTED BY LAURENCE F. LANE, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED PERSONS AND NATIONAL RETIRED TEACHERS ASSOCIATION

Mr. LANE. Thank you, sir.

I am Laurence F. Lane.

Mr. RANGEL. Is Mr. Martin present?

Mr. LANE. Commissioner Martin was unable to change his schedule to testify this morning, and he asked that I express his regrets to the members of the committee.

Mr. RANGEL. Are you testifying on behalf of the two associations? Mr. LANE. Yes, sir; the American Association of Retired Persons and the National Retired Teachers Association. These two are separate but affiliated associations, each keeping their own identity, but commonly staffed.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Lane, you may enter your statement in the record or read it.

Mr. LANE. Thank you, sir.

Inasmuch as much of my prepared statement is duplicative of the concerns expressed by the other witnesses, I shall summarize my remarks and ask that the full text be placed in the record.

Mr. RANGEL. It shall be inserted in the record at the end of your testimony.

Mr. LANE. Our expressed concerns are similar to those made by other witnesses. We are concerned that the bloc grant approach will give less moneys for direct services, that it too narrowly targets to the clientele groups, and it has a potential for funding substandard services, especially in medical and remedial areas.

It is a premature change to the title XX program, and it has a potential for disruption between the partnership of the States and the Federal Government.

Mr. RANGEL. You can't be more concise than that.

Mr. LANE. One of the key concerns that the bloc grant proposal fails to address is the question of inadequate funding of title XX services. We would like to turn, if we could, briefly, to H.R. 12455. Our associations have endorsed the stance that was taken by the social services coalition, which was transmitted to the members of this committee via letter. On page 5 of our prepared text, there is a summary of that letter. Appendices to our statement contain a second letter, which is from our association and the National Council on the Aging, explaining our stance vis-a-vis eligibility.

We believe this is an understandable explanation of our stance on group eligibility and the necessity for maintaining present law restrictions on other requirements for eligibility as mandated by Public Law 93-647.

It was never the intent of our associations in raising the issue of group eligibility to see it misconstrued as a mechanism for dissolving the compromises that achieve a partnership that is title XX.

We brought the issue to this committee and to the Department, emphasizing the necessity of meshing our title XX services program to the congressionally supported service delivery systems developed under the Older Americans Act.

The departmental move toward oral declaration has partially diffused the issue. An expeditious conference committee settlement of H.R. 12455 containing the recommendations which we have set forth both in the social service coalition letter, and in our joint letter with NCOA will resolve the immediate issue.

Until the Congress addresses the all-important issue of raising the ceiling on social services money, our associations are compelled to support the other eligibility criteria of present law.

We believe Public Law 93-647 provides sufficient balance to address both the needs of the categorically needy and those struggling to escape the bondage of poverty.

In closing, our associations wish to extend our appreciation to this committee for undertaking studies of both title XX and title XVI supplemental income security program.

You are confronting similar programs in both situations. With the criticism from the public one is tempted to seek the easiest route away from the controversy.

We hope you will continue the effort to reform these valuable programs which, though not perfect, are improvements over past attempts to meet human needs.

I believe the attachment may not have been submitted to the committee. I do have copies for counsel.

Mr. JENSEN. Thank you.

Mr. RANGEL. Thank you. Mr. Stark?

Mr. STARK. No questions.

Mr. RANGEL. Counsel?

Mr. JENSEN. No questions.

Mr. HAWLEY. No questions.

Mr. RANGEL. Thank you so much.

The committee will consider your recommendations in our consideration.

Mr. LANE. Thank you.

[The prepared statement and attachments follow:]

STATEMENT OF JOHN MARTIN, THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED PERSONS AND THE ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED TEACHERS

I am John B. Martin, former U.S. Commisioner on Aging, presently serving as a special Consultant to the American Association of Retired Persons and the National Retired Teachers Association. These organizations, with a combined membership of over 9 million older Americans, are the largest service and advocacy groups promoting the interests of the elderly. Accompanying me this morning is Laurence F. Lane, who is a Legislative Representative on the staff of the Associations.

Our Associations have a number of serious reservations concerning the provisions of H.R. 12175, the Federal Assistance for Community Services Act. While we can appreciate the need for reviewing the relationships between Federal government and the States in the Title XX partnership, caution must be exercised to prevent an abdication of federal initiative and fiscal control over the services program. Our experience with Public Law 93-647 is limited, and, therefore, it may be premature to change the governing rules for the delivery of social services. Our most serious reservations concerning the proposed Federal Assistance for Community Services Act are as follows:

1. Proposed Section 101, repealing the state share requirements of Section 2002 (a) (1) is in essence, a reduction in the monies available for services at the delivery level;

2. Proposed Section 105 targeting 75 per centum of funds to the categorically needy-stifles initiatives to address the service needs of the nearpoor reviving our earlier dilemmas with fine line distinctions among former, potential and current recipients;